Unnecessary war

[Bubba Fat]

Sadam Hussein and Ossama Bin Laden. In fact their were ennemies. Hussein was a kinda of an Adolf Hitler and Bin Laden a Terrorist. Can you Americans one here see the difference? Goerge Bush decided to attack Irak because of September 11, 2001. As for me Hussein and Bin Laden were ennemies. I can't understand why Busch was attacking Irak for things that Bin Laden did. Millions of soldiers from the allies died just because they believed they attack the murderer who destroyed the Twin Towns. This was an error. Both Hussein and Laden were evil bastards, but this war was just an unnecessary war with too much victims. Though, I'm happy to know that Sadam and Bin Laden are dead.

[Redd4]

Some of us do. I don't think President Bush cared one way or the other, but certain people close to him wanted boots on the ground in the Middle East, and Iraq was an easy mark. The attacks of September 11 were the excuse they needed, and it was easy to morph Afghanistan into Iraq; we were looking for some bad guy to pay some price. As to the weapons of mass destruction, they were going on faith. The President's advisors told him "Don't worry, they're there. Once we're in, we'll find them". It didn't work out that way, Hussein was bluffing, mostly for Iran.
Not much to do now, and I don't really want to. Criminal prosecution might make some of us feel good, but it can't undo anything. It reminds me of the "birther" movement against Obama; Okay, if it's found out he wasn't actually born in this country, do we erase the last 4 years? Is it a do-over? And President Obama himself has proven he's just another politician.
As an American, the older I get the less partisan I get. They're all full of crap.

[leadcounsel]

Sadam Hussein and Ossama Bin Laden. In fact their were ennemies. Hussein was a kinda of an Adolf Hitler and Bin Laden a Terrorist. Can you Americans one here see the difference? Goerge Bush decided to attack Irak because of September 11, 2001. As for me Hussein and Bin Laden were ennemies. I can't understand why Busch was attacking Irak for things that Bin Laden did. Millions of soldiers from the allies died just because they believed they attack the murderer who destroyed the Twin Towns. This was an error. Both Hussein and Laden were evil bastards, but this war was just an unnecessary war with too much victims. Though, I'm happy to know that Sadam and Bin Laden are dead.

An old threat I feel the need to put my $.02 into.

Pre-911 the world could readily ignore 30 years of growing terrorism coming from the Middle East. Much like pre-WWII, everyone wanted to ignore the growing threat boiling over in Germany with the Nazi movement. I'm certain the world, and particularly France, would love to have gone to pre-WWII Germany and taken out the Nazis as they were threatening the globe. But nobody had the appetite or courage. So the threat grew and grew.... The US directly entered WWII after it was attacked by Japan. The US was not attacked by Germany, but I bet the French were darn pleased to see the US liberating France, huh? No complaints from the French, but the same argument could have been made that we had no right to attack Germany... but clearly we did.

Same logic applies. Saddam was a terrorist dictator, with nuclear/biological/chemical weapon aspirations. Very dangerous to the globe. He had demonstrated repeated aggression and use of chemical weapons and environmental weapons in the past. A 10 year war with Iran in the 1980s. I believe he used chemical weapons in that war. He definitely used chemical weapons on Iraq Kurds, killing thousands. An unlawful invasion of Kuwait in 1991. And he set oil fields alight, which took many months to extinguish and was one of the worst global environmental disasters of all time. We went to war and soundly defeated him. We could have taken Baghdad but he wanted to surrender and play nice, which was fine with the US. His being in power and playing nice would create stability and was a win for everyone. Problem is that he violated the important agreements to not seek/build Nukes/Bio/Chemical (NBC) weapons and to allow inspectors access to verify. Trust, but verify type stuff. Can't very well trust if you can't verify. Easy to assume that you have something to hide if you won't allow inspectors in. Spy information showed he was seeking NBCs too.

Leading up to 9-11, the world and US were blissfully naive cruising along and ignoring decades of global threats out of the Middle East. Plane hijackings. Embassy bombings. Assassinations, etc. In the 1980s 300 US Marines were killed in a building in Beruit from a truckbomb. In the 1990s the US was attacked many times on smaller scale by Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists - the USS Cole was bombed in the gulf. The World Trade Centers were bombed from a truck bomb. Our embassies were bombed. We largely ignored this, and in spite of many opportunities to kill Osama Bin Laden we did not. 9-11 was begun being planned in 1998. 3 years later it was executed with horrifying precision and effect.

And we woke up. No longer could we ignore these global threats. We re-evaluated our global interests and threats and in addition to Al Queda, located globally, our enemy Hussein was still in power and seeking NBCs. For 20 years Saddam was in violation of a 'CEASE FIRE' agreement. You understand that it's not another war, but a continuation of the one that was paused 2 decades earlier. So there was nothing illegal about it. Conditions - we are in cease fire as long as you comply. You fail to comply, we bomb you. Got it?? And he failed to comply.

The GLOBAL intelligence community of note (UK, Germany, Russia, the United States, etc.) all very much believed he was seeking NBCs. The vote in the US Congress was overwhelming in support of the evidence and a declaration of taking military action. For over a year this was debated. Saddam moved convoys north to Syria. We knew he was doing this. We suspected those contained the NBCs we believed he had. Surprise. In 2012 Syria civilians were attacked and killed by Chemical weapons. Give you 1 guess where those originated. So, bottom line. Confirmation he was in violation. Bush didn't "decide" to attack Iraq. This was a carefully considered maneuver that was supported almost universally by the countries that matter. Sorry France. But France is largely irrelevant in the modern world.

Having served in Operation Iraqi Freedom over the course of 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, I can say this. The goal was justified and just. Our execution of the war was less than perfect, but we did our best. Are actions followed the law of armed conflict. Or weapons were designed and used to the best ability to avoid civilian casualties. We liberated 50,000,000 people living under oppression and horrible dictatorship. The world - including France - is/was a safer place without Hussein. Unfortunately our partner forces didn't help as much as we would have wanted, and the Iraqis are unwilling or unable to defend themselves from internal and external threats.

Fighting global terrorism after 9-11 is and should be a global priority. Some nations just prefer to sit on the sidelines and nitpick. However, France is being taken over internally by Muslin extremists and will one day realize the importance of fighting the cause.

[Redd4]

leadcounsel, didn't Germany declare war on us, after we declared war on Japan? In which case Germany invited us to their party, and got the turd in their punchbowl

[mahenoguy]

Old thread , but I just read leadcouncils comments and felt compelled to ask if he stands by his above statements given recent events in Iraq ?. I have never in my life condoned any war , not to say that I don't hold soldiers in extremely high regard , I do , it is a level of bravery I'm unsure I posses .but given the event's in Iraq and Syria , It is hard not to wonder if ISis would have got a foothold with Saddam still in place .Given the ease with witch Bin Laden was killed ( He may have taken years to find , but the operation was relatively straight forward ) I am unsure how the invasion of Iraq was the most practical way to fight terrorism . hindsight is always 20/20 and it's all too easy to sit here in peaceful Australia and make broad statements about Geopolitics , but comparisons have been made between the Gulf wars and the second world war . an interesting point to this is to look at the post war occupation / annexing that took place after the second world war , and the political will to prevent it happening again( however unsuccessful ) . the " post Gulf wars "in contrast had the political will of "this was the previous governments problem...we're just going to wind it up as quick as possible " for right or wrong , once you invade a country and depose their government , your in it for a whole generation .I understand that the US had little choice but to bring their troops home and hand over control to the Iraqi government , but the thousand year war began in Iraq and I'm sure the strategic planners of military operations must have known a Shia / Sunni conflict would eventually erupt in the power vacuum left by Saddam . I must add that I am a strident Atheist and struggle with ALL religious ideology , and can't understand how believers in a "Creator " could hold human life ( perhaps the pinnacle of creation ) in such low esteem . I understand that most religions are elitist ( god loves me and mine but hates you and yours ) but weather you face Rome or Mecca , it's hard to accept that anyone would truly expect a reward for the deeds of war. all ideology , dogma and bigotry aside...we have to come to a point where we can admit "perhaps that wasn't the best idea we ever had " acknowledgment is always the first step forward . and for all the brave men and women who actually fought this terrible conflict , we can still be incredibly grateful but regretful . I don't think anyone in there right mind blame soldiers for war...doesn't make it right though

[Redd4]

mahenoguy, I'll let leadcounsel respond to you on his points. My opinion is Hussein was a check in the region, and things went awry when he was gone. He was a brutal dictator, but how many of those do we commonly deal with? As I heard it once--"He's a barbarian, but he's our barbarian". Until it's inconvenient for him to be.
As to a Creator, I'm an agnostic; I can't commit to believing, but I'm open to proof. The most strident Atheist doesn't know that there is no God, any more than the Pope knows that there is one. If I were to believe in a creator, it would be a non-intervening one, letting things go as they will, with rare interference. One thing I like to think of is an ant farm. There's this society of little beings going about their business, and the thought of a higher being watching them with means they don't understand is utterly beyond them. I like to think that's the situation with us, because I really hope there is something more than this.

[mahenoguy]

thanks for the thoughtful reply Redd4. the topic has kind of shifted from the validity of war to the merits creationism ....both really interesting topics from both sides due to their complex nature . your points are all very valid and your right that the most logical position on the topic would be to be agnostic . I disagree however with your point that Natural selection has no more proof than creationism . In-fact , creationism , as written by ...well creationist , speaks of many things that has been completely disproven by science over the years , yet religion is yet to disprove a single scientific fact . I get that that is not the kind of creator your talking about ( you mention a non-interventionist god...which contravenes most religions ) but that's not what the pope advocates ....he speaks of the intervening god of Christian doctrine , and I'm afraid there is infinitely more proof of our origin than of his existence (" greatest show on earth " by Richard Dawkins sets out all the scientific proof of the origin of life on earth and it is very comprehensive ) all the pope has is faith and ancient texts , written in a dead language , in a time when the earth was still thought to be flat .
Now all that being said , as a inquisitive mind it has taken me a very long time to accept that some things are just un-knowable ...like why am I here ? and the clincher...What happens when you die ? These things are un-knowable...plain and simple , so anyone who claims to know the answer to this should be treated with suspicion , probably why I've chosen to put my faith ( no pun intended ) in science . no scientist has ever tried to convince me of the un-knowable .
The work being done by the worlds leading physicists regarding multi-verses , the so called god particle etc etc has made me re-evaluate weather I believe consciousness can exist outside the physical brain....but I think life after death can be treated as a different subject to creationism . Why must they be so entwined ?
Back to Saddam Hussein.....I think history has proven that his kind of brutal leadership was a necessary evil in the region , as cold as that must sound towards the victims of his tyranny . I still don't think those people are better off today though .

[Redd4]

It is funny how these threads can go off on tangents from the original topic, but I kind of like it. I think you misread my last post, when you say I have the opinion that "natural selection has no more proof than creationism"; I do believe in natural selection and evolution, and believe there is ample evidence for it, but I don't discount that these may be the tools of a divine creator. I hope they are, anyway .

[leadcounsel]

Old thread , but I just read leadcouncils comments and felt compelled to ask if he stands by his above statements given recent events in Iraq ?. ....

Yes.

Our execution in Iraq was far from perfect, but our mission was just. Removing dictators and conducting nation building is an "all or nothing" event.

I live by a few mantras: "If you want peace, prepare for war." And, "Trust but verify."

Our military can easily handle the tasks of defeating and nation building. The PROBLEM is our political will and the anti-war populace which has no idea how to win a war or earn peace. Americans, sadly, are soft. We no longer seem to have the political will to do what it takes to win. While I may not have agreed with some of our wars, our Soldiers won but our politicians lost or there was at best a stalemate in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (meaning no decisive long term victory as we typically think of war and winner/loser). You could even argue that even though we lost fewer men, we left having accomplished no material changes after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

In Iraq, we won. We had secured all of our major goals, liberated the nation quite easily and quickly, and won the peace for most people in less than a year - invading in March 2003 and by 2004 we controlled the nation and in January 2005, less than 2 years after our invasion, Iraq held the first democratic elections in 5 decades. The people were going to decide their future. We liberated 50 million people from terrorist oppression - institutionalized abuses, human rights violations, rapes, beatings, beheadings, imprisonment, executions, kidnappings, etc. These are all quite noble things. We removed a horrifically unpredictable, evil, brutal ruler. As for stability, I cannot agree. He INVADED IRAN in 1980, and kicked off an 8 year war with Iran, with a HALF MILLION deaths! He pursued and used chemical weapons including mustard gas, sarin poison, VX and other dangerous weapons. He used some chemical weapons against the Iranians and also against his own people, the Kurds. A few years after the Iraq/Iran war ended in 1988, he invaded Kuwait which drew the United States into a war. After the US defeated him, he lit oil fields in the region destroying entire oil fields and creating a costly economic and environmental disaster. And, in addition to invading Iran and Kuwait, he attacked his own Kurdish citizenry with chemical weapons killing thousands. Finally, from 1991 until our 2003 invasion, he repeatedly failed to comply with a CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT. What that means in laymans terms is a breach of contract and we are back at war. How can we in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01, ignore this? I don't believe we could.

As I said, we defeated the Iraqi forces handily and established good relations. But then the terrorists moved in and we were bogged down by our own ROE and policies, tying our hands at times. By 2011, we had decimated our enemies though, and the nation was relatively peaceful and safe. Had we left a contingency behind, ISIS would not have been able to secure a foothold. Every military leader and much of Congress believed we should leave a contingency, but Obama had an agenda to declare it over and exit. As we saw, that was a colossal mistake and the result quite predictable.

Now, I will say that I'm not so sure that I agree with a modern "boots on the ground" strategy. I believe a successful strategy can be accomplished with airpower, missile strikes, etc. to pound an enemy into submission. For instance, ISIS should have been destroyed in the open desert rather than waiting until they got into the cities, where it does require more ground troop commitment... But this could go on into a lengthy COIN discussion, not on topic here.

[mahenoguy]

firstly to leadcouncil...it is a refreshing insight to hear someone who actually served in the gulf to have a fairly balanced view of the merits and flaws to the conflict . I made some pretty broad statements without any real alternative scenario and over-simplifying the war is not something I am now proud of . I am unable to really comprehend what it would have been like in early post 9/11 Usa , but I did watch it live on T.V ( like most of the world ) and I am a generally empathetic guy and I do remember the shock and Dread that I felt at the deaths of those 1000's of people that did nothing wrong other than show up for work .I find it hard to understand the whole "Truther " movement also....I mean at what point did it become OK to say whatever the fuck you like about 9/11....those poor people and their families , what un-imaginable insult that must be for them .

I know you have copped a lot of flak on here for your views on the new film and I have to say I actually don't agree with a lot of your grievances... but you do seem to be a passionate MM fan and I'm sure we ALL like / dislike different things about the old and new film(s) . all of this aside , Thanks for your well constructed reply ( I'm not sure I could have been so diplomatic had our roles been reversed ) I understand Isis didn't begin in Iraq and I now believe the events in Syria would have occurred regardless of whether Saddam was still in power in Iraq or not . Infact , if Saddam was still in place in Iraq , I'm not even sure we wouldn't be backing Isis against him as in the early days of the battle with Assard regime . I still do struggle with the notion that the world is a safer place due to the gulf war...but as you stated , for a short period I believe it was .

secondly to Redd4...I didn't misread your post and I understand that you are not a believer in the conventional God , but more a non-interventionist , beginning of time type creator which still encompasses evolution . I only wrote of the merits and proof of evolution in reaction to your statement "even the most strident atheist doesn't know there is no god any more than the Pope knows there is one " because your beliefs are not what the pope advocates....his god is more of an interventionist , righteous , punisher who created the world 5 thousand years ago . There is infinitely more proof refuting this than supporting it which kind of negates your statement . Perhaps you should have said "You don't know there is no God any more than I think there is one" to which you would be perfectly correct and I suspect that's what you actually meant ( not to put words in your mouth ) . a good friend of mine once said to me "if some things are unknowable...why not imagine yourself a happy ending , if your wrong , you'll never know anyway " but I am one of those people that have to believe something wholeheartedly or not at all , that is the nature of Believing or Faith as they call it...perhaps not quite as logical as the Agnostic position...but I can't actually help it . I actually wish I was a believer sometimes , as perhaps it would strengthen my conviction about my own validity......but I'm just not wired that way . Sorry if you got the impression I was knocking you or your beliefs/ hopes...I really wasn't , the pope ( or rather the entire church establishment ) is a different story though .
All of this seems a bit soft for thunderdome ......why don't we have a real debate like "why is Brassiere a singular and panties a plural ? shouldn't it be Bra's and Panty rather than Panties and Bra ?